2001 (8) TMI 766 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellants.
2. Challenge against the order of the Commissioner of Customs for absolute confiscation of seized goods.
3. Contention regarding the contraband nature of the goods and the responsibility of the transport company.
4. Legal arguments based on previous decisions and the duty of transporters.
5. Analysis of the facts and legal provisions to determine liability for penalty.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves a stay petition against the Commissioner of Customs' order imposing a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellants under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalty was related to the seizure of contraband goods from the appellants' premises, leading to the initiation of proceedings resulting in the penalty.

2. The appeal challenges the Commissioner's order for the absolute confiscation of the seized goods. The appellants did not contest the contraband nature of the goods or their confiscation but argued against the imposition of the penalty based on the circumstances of the case.

3. The appellants contended that as transporters operating on a competitive basis, they were not aware of the contents of each package they transported. They highlighted that the goods were received through casual traders and that verifying ownership was not feasible. The appellants argued that they were not the importers or owners of the goods and should not be held liable for confiscation.

4. Legal arguments were presented based on previous decisions that emphasized the transporter's lack of obligation to check package contents. The appellants relied on specific cases to support their position that they could not be expected to know the contents of every package passing through their office.

5. The judgment analyzed the facts and legal provisions, including the presumption under Section 114 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court found that the contraband goods were recovered from the appellants' possession, leading to a presumption of knowledge about the goods' nature. The court directed the appellants to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs, with the balance of the penalty waived pending the appeal's disposal.